So which is it? This would be the perfect reply to Noah’s comment that it is the “field” driving the novelty/hotness priority scheme. There is an extent to which this gets very circular.

“Reviewers can review their fellow field/subfield denizens’ papers favorably, and thereby gain market share for their field/subfield,”

I agree but the way you phrase it makes it sound too specific. It is a more broad-based thing. As in “the paper has to contain this list of experimental techniques applied to the question or it is ‘insufficiently mechanistic’ or ‘insufficiently biological’” or some such. So if you have a gene of interest and you go from cells to manipulated mice including behavior and toss in some new array-platform (no, simple affymetrix doesn’t cut it anymore) data well, you are in like flynn. doesn’t matter if some of the components (usually the behavior) are demonstrable crap nor that you have to retract that “mistaken” figure of cut and pasted random blots at a later time. the labs that can put together these huge-ranging efforts don’t have to slap their actual subfield competitors on the back. the don’t really have to be all that creative or interesting or applicable. all they have to do is ensure that they are only competing with similarly technologically capable labs and that’s half the battle. throw in a lot of breast beating about how it is really morally superior to “work on basic science” and you cap off any boys in the crowd pointing out that your artificial-ass system can’t possibly be relevant, say to human health. “What are you talking about”, the crowd replies “I can see those fine purple robes on the Emperor, what’s the matter with you?”

Editors cannot overrule ALL the reviewers – by and large very true.

A subfield can “log-roll” their papers into higher-profile journals – true. But the editors’ job is to make sure papers in the journal represent the whole spectrum of the scope, and that decisions are made in a fair and consistent fashion.

Back to the original point, DM’s ’situation’ – it is reasonably rare I believe, but as you (PP) have mentioned, it varies by field to some extent – not only the do-ability of the experiments from scratch, but also to some extent the personalities in the field.

About fMRI etc – everyone is entitled to their opinion! But in a peer-review system, the more peers you have on your side…

And my experience is that Noah is spot on when he asserts that editors of the high-impact journals really do allow their reviewers to drive the bus. I am aware of situations where I am certain that an editor at C/N/S really wanted, on the basis of her own opinion about a paper, to see the paper published, but simply couldn’t do it in light of the reviews. Editors’ credibility in the scientific community depends in the long run on their respect for and obeisance to the opinions of their reviewers.

Where editors do have a major influence is not on the disposition of papers reporting particular findings, but rather on the fields and subfields that they choose to emphasize by sending more papers in those fields and subfields out for review. For example, it is clear that in Neuron and Nature Neuroscience, there is a de facto mimimum quota for certain subfields in which there is at least one paper published *every* issue. This quota arises out of the review-versus-don’t-review filter, but not out of the decisions on particular papers.

Another interesting sociological phenomenon is the extent to which reviewers who are experts in a particular field/subfield–and thus presumably also authors in that field/subfield–can leverage off editors’ decision to send out papers in that field/subfield for review. Reviewers can review their fellow field/subfield denizens’ papers favorably, and thereby gain market share for their field/subfield, or they can beat the shit out of each other. Of course, editors can recognize this kind of log-rolling, if they are savvy enough, and compensate for it, but it definitely has an influence.

For example, (and I will probably piss a bunch of people off with this), in my opinion, the field of functional imaging of human brains is much bigger–in terms of papers published in high-impact journals and NIH funding expended to support it–than the real insight it delivers into brain function merits. This is, again in my opinion, because the players in this field who review each other’s papers and grants puff each other up, instead of kick each other in the balls. And also because of the decisions of editors to send a lot of these papers out for review.

I am most emphatically NOT trying to suggest that every paper published in the glamor mags has been tainted by an ethically dubious process. What I AM trying to suggest is that it DOES happen and more often than just once in a blue moon.

“Journals know absolutely nothing about what is being considered elsewhere “

um, no. sorry but through one-degree relationships with people on both sides of this who 1) I trust implicitly and 2) had no particular reason to lie or even embellish this is false. Authors tell editors all kinds of stuff trying to influence them. The question is, what impact does an author statement have and what is a given journal doing policy-wise to combat subtle or overt influence.

“besides with the reviewers, it is completely forbidden to discuss papers under consideration with anyone, let alone another journal.”

it happens. besides, the “discussion” part is completely irrelevant to the question of when the PI of the giant lab suddenly decides to get really interested in some languishing project for no particular reason. or shoehorns in an extra (yes related, but not that related) figure to an existing story.

“Conspiracy theories based on submission dates and speculation bore me.”

Be that as it may I think you have your head in the sand. It should take no genius to think that, just perhaps, my points are based on just a leeeetle more than the observation of submission dates. And on a little more than a paranoid nature. not all of the evidence is really fodder for this particular venue. The point is whether the “field” speaks up and says “gee, DM, I’ve never heard of any such thing myself you’re hitting about a 4.8 on the DMS” or speaks up and says “uh, yeah, I’ve heard or experienced something similar myself”.

Given that information, and as I mentioned, the fact that not all journals follow the same policies regarding this point, how can one meticulously compare submission dates and make a close-reading of them???? As you state, if that is what Drugmonkey’s analysis comes down to, then that part needs to be discarded as it is based on information that is simply not complete. Again, one can’t split temporal hairs with manuscripts that have submission dates within 6 months or so of each other without taking a serious risk that those comparisons will be flawed. What more can I say??

In Drugmonkey’s opinion, journals are altering their evaluations based on rumor and what is currently in their systems. Journals know absolutely nothing about what is being considered elsewhere and, besides with the reviewers, it is completely forbidden to discuss papers under consideration with anyone, let alone another journal. Anyone violating that is breaking a serious ethical code. That is why such accusations are so serious. Circumstantial evidence is never good enough to make such claims. Conspiracy theories based on submission dates and speculation bore me.

I won’t comment on shenanigans (as I’ve stated, people can only know what they know, and I agree editors can’t be police), but again you’ve stated that DM should “take these dates with a grain of salt”, and DM’s entire issue (at least initially), was in fact based on a “close reading” of these dates. Which is why the topic might benefit from further clarification (beyond what you’ve done in these blog comments), IMO.